Delhi High Court - Orders
Aditiya Rana vs Vice Chancellor, Delhi Univeristy & Ors on 24 January, 2019
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8030/2015
ADITIYA RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. J.K. Rana, Mr. Sushil
Kumar Dubey, Ms. Noor
Rampal and Ms. Divya Nair,
Advs.
versus
VICE CHANCELLOR, DELHI UNIVERISTY & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr.
Bhanu Gupta, Advs. for R-1
&2
Mr. Partha Sil and Mr. Tavish
B. Prasad, Advs. for R-2
Mr. B.S. Rana, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 24.01.2019
1. This case throws up certain very peculiar issues for consideration, and seems to disclose complete anarchy in the system of issuance of Statement of Marks in the University of Delhi, at least as things stood in 2010.
2. The petitioner was a student of the B.A.(Honours) programme in Applied Psychology, conducted by the University of Delhi, and was registered with the Sri Aurobindo College (Evening). The programme is of three years duration, the three years being designated as Part-I, Part-II and Part-III.
3. The controversy in this case relates to the marks obtained and awarded to the petitioner in his first year, i.e. in the Part-I component of the said programme.
4. In the first year, i.e. in the Part-I component of the abovementioned programme, the petitioner was required to give six papers, which had been assigned individual paper codes thus :
Paper Code Subjects
A 101 General Psychology
A 102 Research Methods and Statistics-I
A 103 System and Theories of Psychology
A 104 Practicum
A 501 English (Language)
A 526 Environmental Issues in India
C 301 Abnormal Psychology
C 302 Introduction to Counselling
C 305 Consumer Psychology & Advertising
C 306 Practical
C 307 Practical
5. In the Statement of Marks that was issued at the end of his first year, by the University, the petitioner is shown as having secured a total of 16 marks out of 50 in the paper relating to Research Methods and Statistics (Paper Code A 102) and having secured 13 marks out of 50 in the paper relating to "Environmental Issues in India" (Paper Code A 526). Curiously however, the marginal remarks, in the said Statement of Marks reflected the comment "ER- EII" which may be expanded as "Essential Repeat - Environmental Issues in India". The petitioner was, therefore, apparently required to repeat the paper in Environmental Issues in India (A 526). A glance at the marks awarded in the said Statement of Marks indicate that this was because the petitioner had secured only 13 marks out of 50, which was, apparently, below the qualifying pass percentage for the paper which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, was probably 33%. If that is so, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner was not required to "essentially repeat" the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A 102), in which he had secured only 16 marks out of 50.
6. None of the learned counsel have an answer to this mystery. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is only that, rightly or wrongly, the petitioner was only directed to undergo essential repeat in paper A 526, i.e. the paper relating to Environmental Issues in India and not in the paper A 102 i.e. the paper relating to Research Methods and Statistics. Learned counsel appearing for the College, needless to say, submits that the mark sheet having been issued by the University, the University alone could explain it. Learned counsel for the University submits that the non- reflection of the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A 102) as having to be essentially repeated by the petitioner, in the aforementioned Statement of Marks, was probably a mistake.
7. The confusion, however, does not end there. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the aforementioned Statement of Marks required the petitioner only to repeat Paper A 526 i.e. Environmental Issues in India, the Statement of Marks did not clearly indicate this fact and that, on making enquiries with the University, the petitioner was informed that he had, in fact, to essentially repeat the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A
102). If my above analysis of the situation is correct, this was not a mistake and, in fact, the petitioner ought to have been made to repeat both the papers, i.e. A 526 as well as A 102, having secured less than 33% in each of the said papers. I cannot conceive of a situation in which the petitioner could have been required to repeat only paper A 526, and not paper A 102, when he had secured 13 marks out of 50 in the former and 16 marks out of 50 in the latter, i e less than 33% in each case.
8. Be that as it may, on what learned Senior Counsel submits was incorrect information conveyed to her client, she states that the petitioner actually repeated the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A 102). It is significant to note that in the form filled in by the petitioner before repeating the said paper, annexed as Annexure A- 1 to the short affidavit, filed by the respondent, and figuring at page 36 of the paper book, the petitioner is shown as having the subject of Research Methods and Statistics (A 102) as an essential repeat (ER) subject.
9. In his second attempt, at the abovementioned paper, Research Methods and Statistics, the petitioner, as fate would have it, secured less than he had secured in his first attempt, i.e. 13 marks out of 50 as against the first attempt in which he secured 16 marks out of 50. The contention of Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, as the repeat in the paper on Research Methods and Statistics was given by the petitioner erroneously, as he was actually required only to repeat the paper on Environmental Issues in India, the petitioner ought to be assessed, on the paper on Research Method and Statistics on the basis of the 16 marks, secured by him in his first attempt at the paper out of 50 rather than on his repeat, in which he secured only 13 marks out of 50.
10. The petitioner, apparently, actually repeated the paper on Environmental Issues in India (A 526) in his third year, and was awarded 19 marks out of 38 in his theory part and 0 marks out of 12 in his internal assessment, as is reflected in the final Statement of Marks issued to the petitioner in May-June, 2014, and annexed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. The contention of Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Counsel is that the University erroneously awarded 0 marks to the petitioner in the internal assessment component of the said paper. She points out that the internal assessment, component consisted of three subject components, i.e. "House Examination", "Assignment" and "Attendance", for which purpose she would draw my attention to page 130 of the paper book. Regarding the "attendance" component, Ms. Mathur's contention is that, if the petitioner had, to his credit, less than 66% attendance, he would not have been permitted to write the paper at all, in view of Regulation 3, figuring at page 152 of the paper book, whereby a student who had, to his credit, less than 66% attendance in the year would not be permitted to write the examination. Inasmuch as her client had never been detained from writing any of the papers, Ms. Mathur's submission is that he had quite clearly attended at least 66% of the classes in each of the subjects. Ms. Mathur draws my attention to the relevant Regulation (figuring at page 28 of the paper book) which contemplates 5% weightage for regularly attending lectures and attendance in internal assessment, of which if more than 67%, but less than 70% of the classes have been attended, 1 mark is to be awarded, if more than 70% but less than 75% of the classes have been attended, 2 marks have to be awarded, etc. Ms. Mathur's contention is that, as the petitioner had unquestionably attended at least 66% of the classes, as is reflected from the fact that he was never detained for want of attendance, he was entitled to be granted at least 1 mark in the paper on Environmental Issues in India (A 526), against the internal assessment component thereof. On this issue being put to learned counsel for the College, the submission of learned counsel is that the requisite minimum attendance percentage, to undertake an examination was 66%, whereas one mark would be awarded only if the student had attended 67% to 71% of the classes. Ms. Mathur rightly contends that if this contention were to be accepted, it would mean that her client attended 66% of the classes but had not attended 67% of the classes, i.e. that the percentage of classes attended by her client was in the no- man's land between 66 and 67. If such a contention were to be urged, Ms. Mathur is justified in stating that the burden to establish the said allegation would be on the College. The College has, for its part, come on record to state that the majority of the records of the Part-I session of the B.A. Programme attended by the petitioner, are not traceable. Ms. Mathur contends that, if the records are not traceable, an adverse inference would necessarily have to be drawn against the College. Prima facie, I feel there is merit in the said contention.
11. Ms. Mathur contends, therefore, that in the final Statement of Marks issued to her client, (Annexure P-2 in the writ petition), her client was entitled, at least, to 1 mark against the Internal Assessment component of the paper on Environmental Issues in India which would result in his total marks against the said paper becoming 20 out of 50, which would satisfy the pass percentage of 40%.
12. Though the final Statement of Marks reflects the petitioner not to have cleared only the paper A 526 (Environmental Issues in India), Ms. Mathur correctly points out that, even against the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A 102), the marks awarded to her client in the said final mark sheet are 13 out of 50. She submits that her client was entitled to be awarded 16 marks out of 50, as per the marks obtained by him, on his first attempt, at the said paper, rather than the reduced performance of his second attempt when he scored 13 marks out of 50. She bases this submission on the premise, already noted hereinabove that the petitioner had, by an erroneous impression, undertaken the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A 102), a second time, whereas he was actually required to repeat only paper A 526 (Environmental Issues in India), I have however, already noted hereinabove that, if the petitioner were to have had to repeat A 526, on account of having secured only 13 marks out of 50 in the said paper, he would, inter alia also have had to repeat the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A 102), as he had scored only 16 marks out of 50 in the said paper.
13. The merit of the contention of Ms. Mathur that, in the final Statement of Marks awarded to the petitioner, against the subject of Research Methods and Statistics, the petitioner ought to be granted 16 marks out of 50 instead of 13 out of 50 would necessarily have to depend on unravelling of the mystery of the reason for the petitioner not being asked to repeat the paper on Research Methods and Statistics after his first year, though he had scored only 16 marks out of 50 in the said paper.
14. In order for the petitioner to succeed, and be treated as ultimately having passed in the B.A.(Honours) Programme, it may be noted that it would be essential for him, to not only to get one mark in the paper on Environmental Issues in India (A 526), but also four additional marks in the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A
102) then he would have got the said additional marks and the overall performance of the petitioner would entitle him to having passed the course overall.
15. As the above recital discloses, several conflicting factual anomalies have arisen in this matter, which should be disentangled by the Delhi University, as all mark sheets have been issued by it, and the applicable Rules/Regulations/Guidelines, in this regard, are also issued by the University.
16. As such, the University of Delhi is directed to file an affidavit, explaining, clearly and precisely, the following:-
(i) The Statement of Marks issued to the petitioner in the first year (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) indicates that the petitioner had scored 13 marks out of 50 in paper A 526 (Environmental Issues in India) and 16 marks out of 50 in paper A 102 (Research Methods and Statistics). If the requisite pass percentage, which would result in a student not having to repeat the paper was 33%, the petitioner ought to have been essentially asked to repeat both the said papers. As such, the University would be required to clarify as to why the petitioner was asked only to essentially repeat the paper on Environmental Issues in India (A 526).
(ii) In the final Statement of Marks awarded to the petitioner (Annexure P-2), the petitioner is shown as having been awarded 0 marks against his internal assessment component of the paper on Environmental Issues in India (A 526). The contention of Ms. Mathur is that, as the petitioner had not been detained, and had been permitted to write the said paper, he would, at the least, had attended 66% of the classes in the said subject. A student who had attended between 67% and 70% of the classes, would be entitled at least one mark against the Internal Assessment component of the subject. The University would be required to explain, therefore, as to how the petitioner was awarded 0 against the internal assessment component of the paper relating to Environmental Issues in India (A 526).
(iii) The final Statement of Marks also reflects the petitioner's marks, against the paper on Research Method and Statistics (A
102) as 13 out of 50. The contention of the petitioner is that, as the petitioner had scored 16 marks out of 50 in the said paper, if this was so, the final statement of marks ought to have shown to the petitioner as an essentially repeat candidate, not only in paper A 526 but also in paper A 102. The said statement of marks, however, reflected the petitioner as an essential repeat candidate only in the paper on Environmental Issues in India, i.e. paper code A 526. This is yet another anomaly which the University would have to explain.
(iv) The petitioner's contention is that, as the petitioner was never asked to essentially repeat the paper on Research Methods and Statistics, the marks awarded to him in his final Statement of Marks ought to have been the marks obtained by him in his initial attempt, in the said paper, i.e. 16 rather than 13 marks out of 50 when he repeated the said paper. The University would also have to explain as to how, if the petitioner had never been asked to essentially repeat the paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A 102), the University had adopted, in the final Statement of Marks, the marks obtained by the petitioner, on such repeated attempt, of 13 marks out of 50 instead of the original marks obtained by him of 16 out of 50. The explanation in this regard would necessarily be indicated as to why the initial Statement of Marks, issued to the petitioner after his first year, did not require the petitioner to repeat his paper on Research Methods and Statistics (A 102).
(v) The University would also have to clarify the following :
(a) whether in order to be permitted to appear in a particular paper, the candidate was required to have attended 66% of the classes in that paper, 66% attendance in any of the individual papers/subjects to be given, and
(b) whether, to be treated as passed, in the overall B.A. (Honours) Programme, the candidate is required to obtain an overall 40% aggregate in all the subjects, or whether the qualifying pass percentage of 40% is to be reckoned in any other manner.
17. While answering the above issues, the University is also directed to place on record, the complete documents of all instructions, (rather than truncated pages thereof) which are relevant in that regard.
18. The University is directed to file an affidavit, on the above aspects, within a period of four weeks. An advance copy of the affidavit would be served on learned counsel for the petitioner who may respond to it within two weeks thereof.
19. Renotify on 27th March, 2019.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J JANUARY 24, 2019/kr